As to your silly movie 24 FPS comment, that number isn't used because it is the maximum FPS the human eye can see, but rather because it is considered the most efficient. More FPS equaled more film used. The bright flicker in movies created an afterimage after being displayed that stays with you as the next frame on screen is displayed. This creates the illusion of fluid motion. However, digital images capable of capturing film at a much higher rate has been shown to noticably improve movie quality. The 24 fps has been the staple not out of concern for picture quality, but out of habit. Newer movies shot with digital medium are raising the bar. More importantly, the reason the movie analogy doesn't work here is movies show one still frame at a time. TV's continually refresh in lines. The distinction in frames is much more apparent.myke2010

Absolutely incorrect. Couldn't be further from the truth. Most, if not all, professional movies, even the new ones shot on HD, use 24 fps. The difference between film and games is that there is motion blur when something is filmed, which hides the gaps between the frames. It is in the actual film frames themselves, not some illusion. If what you said were possible, they could do that in games as well. But it is not possible.

Increasing the frame-rate has definitely not been shown to "noticeably improve movie quality," in fact it somewhat detracts from the experience. Tests run in the opposite direction of what you are saying. It looks more like reality television, which people do not seem to like. There is a huge difference.

Oh come on, people mention Star Wars FPSs before they mention Halo: CE and Halo 2. Don't be ridiculous, Halo is the best console FPS series ever, ever.pyoob

Well Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II is actually my second favorite FPS of all time, right behind Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

Well, had Microsoft never bought Rare, the original members of rare would still be there.....and PDZ wouldn't have sucked (if you think it deserved a 9,0, you are....wow).

Infinatey

PDZ definitely deserved a 9.0. Just because a game doesn't match your pre-conceived notions about how it should look and feel, does not make it a bad game. PDZ had absolutely fantastic gameplay. Sure, its artstyle was not as cool as the original game, and the story was clearly inferior, but its gameplay was top-notch.

And before you start talking about how I'm a blind lemming or whatever, I actually thought that PDZ sucked when I first tried it. I was too stuck on the differences between it and the first game. Then I returned to it out of boredom one day. I had all ready gotten past any and all expectations I might have, and I realized that the game was actually fantastic.

The gameplay is different than normal shooters. It takes time to get used to, but when you do, it is an amazing experience.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="gamergeekgeek"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Other - Adventure games.

*Edit* Just to clarify that, I mean adventure games, not action-adventure games like God of War.

whoisryanmack

Yep

cant think of a adventure game without action though

We are not talking about games like Zelda and God of War. Those are action / adventure games. We are talking about a completely different genre of games. Games like Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, The Longest Journey. You probably cannot think of any adventure games wihout action, because you probably have not played any real adventure games.

Take it easy there guys. I never would have written god of war if I knew it would make everyone so upset.

What?